IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v19y1999i1-3p111-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Measuring Assets in Household Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Hurd, Michael D

Abstract

Cognitive psychology has identified and studied extensively a number of cognitive anomalies that may be important for the assessment of the economic status of individuals and households. In particular the use of brackets to elicit information about income and assets in surveys of households can interact with acquiescence bias and anchoring to cause bias in the estimates of the distributions of income and assets. This paper uses data from the Health and Retirement Study and the Asset and Health Dynamics Study to find that, as predicted by psychology, bracketing can produce bias in population estimates of assets. Copyright 1999 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Hurd, Michael D, 1999. "Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Measuring Assets in Household Surveys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 111-136, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:19:y:1999:i:1-3:p:111-36
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:spr:portec:v:1:y:2002:i:2:d:10.1007_s10258-002-0009-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Auld, M Christopher, et al, 2001. "The Efficacy of Construction Site Safety Inspections," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(4), pages 900-921, October.
    3. W. Kip Viscusi, 1994. "Mortality Effects of Regulatory Costs and Policy Evaluation Criteria," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(1), pages 94-109, Spring.
    4. Sala-i-Martin, Xavier, 1997. "I Just Ran Two Million Regressions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(2), pages 178-183, May.
    5. Lovell, Michael C, 1983. "Data Mining," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 65(1), pages 1-12, February.
    6. Viscusi, W Kip & Aldy, Joseph E, 2003. "The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates throughout the World," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 5-76, August.
    7. repec:cup:apsrev:v:74:y:1980:i:03:p:745-756_16 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Luojia Hu, 2002. "Estimation of a Censored Dynamic Panel Data Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(6), pages 2499-2517, November.
    9. Ziliak, James P, 1997. "Efficient Estimation with Panel Data When Instruments Are Predetermined: An Empirical Comparison of Moment-Condition Estimators," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 15(4), pages 419-431, October.
    10. Scholz, John T & Gray, Wayne B, 1990. "OSHA Enforcement and Workplace Injuries: A Behavioral Approach to Risk Assessment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 283-305, September.
    11. Hall, Peter & Horowitz, Joel L, 1996. "Bootstrap Critical Values for Tests Based on Generalized-Method-of-Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 891-916, July.
    12. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Comerford & Liam Delaney & Colm Harmon, 2009. "Experimental Tests of Survey Responses to Expenditure Questions," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, pages 419-433.
    2. Monika BÜTLER, 2003. "Mandated Annuities in Switzerland," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'Econométrie et d'Economie politique (DEEP) 03.08, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, DEEP.
    3. Monika Bütler & Federica Teppa, 2005. "Should You Take a Lump-Sum or Annuitize? Results from Swiss Pension Funds," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2005 2005-20, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    4. Winter, Joachim, 0000. "Bracketing effects in categorized survey questions and the measurement of economic quantities," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-35, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    5. David Aadland & Arthur Caplan & Owen Phillips, 2007. "A Bayesian examination of information and uncertainty in contingent valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 149-178, October.
    6. van Soest, Arthur & Hurd, Michael, 2008. "A Test for Anchoring and Yea-Saying in Experimental Consumption Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 126-136, March.
    7. R Alessie & A Kapteyn, 2001. "New data for understanding saving," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 55-69, Spring.
    8. Alison J. Wellington & Justin B. Whitmire, 2007. "Kidney Transplants And The Shortage Of Donors: Is A Market The Answer?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 25(2), pages 131-145, April.
    9. Monika Bütler, 2002. "Flexibility and Redistribution in Old Age Insurance," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 138(IV), pages 427-437, December.
    10. Dolan, Paul & Metcalfe, Robert, 2012. "The relationship between innovation and subjective wellbeing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1489-1498.
    11. Jeffrey Grogger, 2009. "Welfare Reform, Returns to Experience, and Wages: Using Reservation Wages to Account for Sample Selection Bias," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(3), pages 490-502, August.
    12. Arthur van Soest & Michael Hurd, 2004. "Models for Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Consumption Data," NBER Working Papers 10461, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Erin Ruel & Robert Hauser, 2013. "Explaining the Gender Wealth Gap," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 50(4), pages 1155-1176, August.
    14. Thomas Juster & Honggao Cao & Mick Couper & Daniel Hill & Michael Hurd & Joseph Lupton & Michael Perry & James Smith, 2007. "Enhancing the Quality of Data on the Measurement of Income and Wealth," Working Papers wp151, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    15. Fabian Gouret & Guillaume Hollard, 2011. "When Kahneman meets Manski: Using dual systems of reasoning to interpret subjective expectations of equity returns," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 371-392, April.
    16. Kremslehner, Daniela & Muermann, Alexander, 2016. "Asymmetric information in automobile insurance: Evidence from driving behavior," CFS Working Paper Series 543, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    17. John L. Czajka & Gabrielle Denmead, "undated". "Income Data for Policy Analysis: A Comparative Assessment of Eight Surveys," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 19724257b78544bdbd55f15be, Mathematica Policy Research.
    18. F. Thomas Juster & Honggao Cao & Michael Perry & Mick Cooper, 2006. "The Effect of Unfolding Brackets on the Quality of Wealth Data in the HRS," Working Papers wp113, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C80 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - General
    • D13 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Production and Intrahouse Allocation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:19:y:1999:i:1-3:p:111-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.